Important Bird Areas in Antarctica · Important Bird Areas in Antarctica 2015: Summary Page | 2 numbers for Emperor Penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) (Fretwell et al. 2012) and Adélie

Important Bird Areas

in Antarctica 2015

Summary

Important Bird Areas

in Antarctica 2015

Summary

Harris, C.M., Lorenz, K., Fishpool, L.D.C., Lascelles, B., Cooper, J., Croxall, J.P.,

Emmerson, L.M., Fraser, W.R., Fijn, R., Jouventin, P., LaRue, M.A., Le Maho, Y., Lynch, H.J.,

Naveen, R., Patterson-Fraser, D.L., Peter, H.-U., Poncet, S., Phillips, R.A., Southwell, C.J.,

van Franeker, J.A., Weimerskirch, H., Wienecke, B., & Woehler, E.J.

April 2015

Important Bird Areas in Antarctica 2015: Summary

Page | i

Citation Harris, C.M., Lorenz, K., Fishpool, L.D.C., Lascelles, B., Cooper, J., Croxall, J.P., Emmerson, L.M., Fijn, R., Fraser, W.L.,

Jouventin, P., LaRue, M.A., Le Maho, Y., Lynch, H.J., Naveen, R., Patterson-Fraser, D.L., Peter, H.-U.,

Poncet, S., Phillips, R.A., Southwell, C.J., van Franeker, J.A., Weimerskirch, H., Wienecke, B., & Woehler, E.J.

2015. Important Bird Areas in Antarctica 2015 Summary. BirdLife International and Environmental Research

& Assessment Ltd., Cambridge.

Cover photograph Adélie Penguin colony at Seabee Hook, Cape Hallett, Important Bird Area (IBA) ANT170 and Antarctic Specially

Protected Area (ASPA) No. 106. © era-images C. Harris 2010.

Acknowledgements BirdLife International and Environmental Research & Assessment Ltd. gratefully acknowledge generous support for

this study from the Governments of Australia (Australian Antarctic Division), New Zealand (Antarctica New Zealand

and Department of Conservation), Norway (Norsk Polarinstitutt), the United Kingdom (Foreign & Commonwealth

Office), and the United States (National Science Foundation Division of Polar Programs), from the Scientific Committee

on Antarctic Research in supporting the workshops, and from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the British Birdwatching

Fair 2014, which has been vital to undertake the Antarctic IBA assessment and for the preparation of this report.

We acknowledge the work of the SCAR Bird Biology Sub-Committee that laid the foundation for the original results on

which this project has built, with data compilations initiated by John Croxall from 1986, and John Cooper, Jan van

Franeker, Bill Fraser, Yvon le Maho, Hans-Ulrich Peter and Eric Woehler were particularly instrumental in the

workshops organised by SCAR on the topic. SCAR is also thanked for kind permission to use the Antarctic Digital

Database in preparation of the maps included within this report.

A wide range of scientists have been most generous by contributing data and reviews that have formed an essential

part of this assessment. In particular we thank David Ainley, André Ancel, Ian Angus, Grant Ballard, Christoph

Barbraud, Jonathon Barrington, Kerry Barton, Louise Blight, Nicole Bransome, Gill Bunting, Henry Burgess, Rachels

Carr, Nestor Coria, Rob Crawford, Jeroen Creuwels, Igor Debski, Sebastien Descamps, Mike Dunn, Mike Evans, Debbie

Freeman, Peter Fretwell, Neil Gilbert, Shulamit Gordon, Tom Hart, Peter Hodum, Jennifer Jackson, Julie Janovsky,

Sarah Jones, Liz Karan, Andrea Kavanagh, Gerry Kooyman, Andrew Lowther, Phil Lyver, Wieslawa Misiak, Birgit

Njåstad, Michaela Mayer, Ewan McIvor, Brian O’Connor, Warren Papworth, Polly Penhale, Paul Ponganis, Norman

Ratcliffe, David Rootes, Jane Rumble, Anne Saunders, Mathew Schwaller, Michael Sparrow, Arnaud Tarroux, Göran

Thor, Phil Trathan, Rodolfo Werner, Deb Wilson, Peter Wilson, and Euan Young. Thanks are extended to the British

Antarctic Survey and the Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, for kindly providing access to

archives and library resources.


Page | ii

Contents

Citation .................................................................................................................................................. i

Cover photograph ................................................................................................................................. i

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... i

Contents ............................................................................................................................................... ii

List of acronyms and abbreviations .................................................................................................... iii

IUCN Red List status ............................................................................................................................ iii

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

Objectives .................................................................................................................. 2

Methods ..................................................................................................................... 2 Definitions of IBA selection criteria .................................................................................................................................... 2 Numerical criteria for IBA listing ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Criteria for defining the IBA boundary ............................................................................................................................... 6 Limitations in data sources ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Review and comment on initial results .............................................................................................................................. 8

Results ....................................................................................................................... 8

Overview and regional maps .................................................................................... 19

Site accounts – not provided in Summary ................................................................ 27

Conclusion................................................................................................................ 28

Online resources ...................................................................................................... 29

Protected and Managed Area Management Plans ................................................... 30

Map references ........................................................................................................ 31

Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 31


Page | iii

List of acronyms and abbreviations ACAP Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels

ADD Antarctic Digital Database

ASPA Antarctic Specially Protected Area

ASMA Antarctic Specially Managed Area

ASI Antarctic Site Inventory

ATS Antarctic Treaty System

ATCM Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting

CCAMLR Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

CEMP CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program

CI Confidence Interval

COMNAP Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs

ERA Environmental Research & Assessment

IAATO International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators

IBA Important Bird Area

IUCN World Conservation Union

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

SCAR Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

IUCN Red List status NE Not Evaluated

DD Data Deficient

LC Least Concern

NT Near Threatened

VU Vulnerable

EN Endangered

CR Critically Endangered

EW Extinct in the Wild

EX Extinct


Page | 1

Introduction Identifying those areas of Antarctica that are most important for birds has its roots in efforts to compile data on the

distribution and abundance of Antarctic bird species initiated by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

(SCAR) Bird Biology Sub-Committee as early as the 1980s, then Chaired by John Croxall. Around the same time,

BirdLife International established the Important Bird Area (IBA) programme to provide a means of identifying sites of

international conservation significance for the world’s birds. To achieve this, BirdLife International has worked closely

with organisations and individuals in the countries concerned. It was natural, therefore, that in the 1990s BirdLife

International and SCAR formed a collaboration to compile an IBA inventory for Antarctica. This was initiated at the

XXV SCAR Meeting in Concepción, Chile in 1998. Criteria for selection appropriate to Antarctica were agreed at the

next meeting held in 2000 in Tokyo, Japan, based on IBA designation criteria established by BirdLife and used

elsewhere in the world. SCAR and BirdLife International then held workshops on IBAs in Jena, Germany, in 2002 and in

Texel, The Netherlands in 2004, and an initial list of IBAs was identified, which was reappraised by Fijn (2005).

After a gap of several years and with support from the United Kingdom, the initiative was renewed in 2010 to develop

a list for the Antarctic Peninsula, South Shetland Islands and South Orkney Islands, which was published in 2011

(Harris et al. 2011). This study identified 101 sites that met the BirdLife / SCAR IBA selection criteria (see definitions of

IBA criteria below), and full details were published on the Data Zone of the BirdLife web site, from where this report

can also be downloaded. Several sites are de-listed in the current assessment as a result of new data (see Table 2).

With further support from the Governments of Australia, New Zealand, Norway and the United States, and the Pew

Charitable Trusts, the analysis was extended to include the remainder of Antarctica over 2013-15. First, global

population estimates for each species, which determine the thresholds at which a site qualifies as an IBA, were

reviewed and updated (Table 1). Drawing predominantly on peer-reviewed literature, in some cases supplemented by

unpublished data made available by the science community and personal communications, breeding colony data were

then analysed to identify those that meet the criteria, including a spatial analysis to assess where the criterion of

10 000 seabird pairs present within a defined areal unit was met.

The analysis proceeded on a regional basis, circulating initial results to specialists working in these regions for review

and comment. As a result, revisions were made and the results for each region were then combined into a

consolidated list for the whole of Antarctica. This list proposed 205 IBAs, and was circulated for further comment to

more than 90 Antarctic bird scientists world-wide. Following a final round of consultation, the list was revised to give a

final total of 204 IBAs.

There are no definitive rules to determine the spatial extent of an IBA, and therefore no clear guidance on how to

aggregate the breeding site data that determine whether an area meets the IBA selection criteria (Harris et al. 2011).

A problem that arises in this context is known as the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem, which is a recognised difficulty in

spatial analysis that arises when "the areal units … used in …geographical studies are arbitrary, modifiable, and subject

to the whims and fancies of whoever is doing, or did, the aggregating" (Openshaw 1984). That is, results can be

influenced by the particular choice of spatial unit used. Therefore Environmental Research & Assessment (ERA)

developed a method based on a grid-analysis which serves as a more objective approach for the identification of

breeding site IBAs. Specifically, after extensive analyses undertaken to determine breeding site IBAs in the Antarctic

Peninsula region (Harris et al. 2011), the method employed identified an IBA where:

1. The count at an individual colony meets or exceeds the population thresholds set by BirdLife International for any of the species present at a site for any of the global Level A IBA criteria;

2. The result of summing the count at an individual colony for one or more species contained within a 5 km2 area,

or breeding on a landmass ≤ 5 km2, exceeds the species numbers threshold for global Level A criteria A4iii;

3. Individual colonies have been defined in accordance with the definitions given in the source data.

The analysis has now been extended to include population data available for the breeding bird species listed in Table 1

for the whole of Antarctica south of 60° S. Data are relatively complete for the penguins, although are patchy and

incomplete for other species, reflecting to some degree the ease with which different species may be counted. Recent

advances in remote sensing platforms and methods have, for the first time, enabled global, synoptic estimates of


Page | 2

numbers for Emperor Penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) (Fretwell et al. 2012) and Adélie Penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae)

(Lynch & LaRue 2014), although similar analyses for other species (e.g. Chinstrap (Pygoscelis antarctica) and Gentoo

(Pygoscelis papua) penguins) have yet to be completed, and for some species may prove elusive owing to the

difficulties of detecting clear breeding site spectral signatures because of their nesting habits (e.g. burrowing or widely

spaced).

It should be noted that at this stage the IBA assessment has been made for breeding sites only, and the wider marine

foraging areas of birds remain to be addressed. Consideration of the marine component of IBAs is vital, although is

more complex (e.g. including factors such as foraging ecology, breeding colony sizes, physical oceanography, sea ice,

prey species distributions, productivity etc.) and for practical reasons this report first gives attention to breeding sites;

it is intended that assessment of the marine components will follow as quickly as possible.

Objectives The aim of this study is to compile a revised and updated list of IBAs for Antarctica south of 60° S based on best

available breeding site data for the species listed in Table 1.

Methods ERA applied the same methodology that was used in the previous study to identify IBAs on the Antarctic Peninsula,

South Shetland and South Orkney Islands (Harris et al. 2011). In this study, sites were evaluated on the basis of

whether individual colonies (as identified in source data) met the criteria for IBA listing using the selection criteria

elaborated below. In addition, to determine whether a site, or sites, met the A4iii criteria of 10 000 seabird pairs

present within a specific spatial area, concentrations of seabirds were analysed using a 5 km2 grid overlay method. The

predefined regular 5 km2 grid was overlaid onto colony centroids for each bird species and the numbers of breeding

pairs within each grid cell was then summed. The results were then used to identify grid cells within which the number

of breeding pairs for all species present exceeded the A4iii population threshold of 10 000 pairs. When the criteria

were met, the site qualified as an IBA, and its spatial extent was then determined using the rules to define the IBA

boundary as summarised below.

Definitions of IBA selection criteria

The global (Level A) IBA criteria are used to identify IBAs in this report. These criteria were standardised for global

application following extensive consultation amongst experts in the BirdLife International Partnership and related

fields (Fishpool & Evans 2001). It is intended that supplementary criteria based on regional sites of ornithological

importance may be nested within the global IBA criteria.

The following definitions of the IBA selection criteria are based on Fishpool & Evans (2001):

A1: Globally threatened species.

“The site is known or thought regularly to hold significant numbers of a globally threatened species, or other species

of global conservation concern”.

The site qualifies if it is known, estimated or thought to hold a population of a species categorized by the IUCN Red

List as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) or Vulnerable (VU). In general, the regular presence of a CR or EN

species, irrespective of population size, at a site may be sufficient for a site to qualify as an IBA. For VU species, the

presence of more than threshold numbers at a site is necessary to trigger selection. The site may also qualify if it holds

more than threshold numbers of species in the Near Threatened (NT) category. Thresholds are set regionally, often on

a species by species basis.

A2: Restricted range species.

“The site is known or thought to hold a significant component of a group of species whose breeding distributions

define an Endemic Bird Area (EBA) or a Secondary Area.”


Page | 3

A3: Biome-restricted assemblages.

“The site is known or thought to hold a significant component of the group of species whose distributions are largely

or wholly confined to one biome.”

A4: Globally important congregations.

A4i: “The site is known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, 1% or more of a biogeographic population of a

congregatory waterbird species.”

A4ii: “The site is known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, 1% or more of the global population of a congregatory

seabird or terrestrial species.”

A4iii: “The site is known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, at least 20 000 waterbirds, or at least 10 000 pairs of

seabirds, of one or more species.”

A4iv: “The site is known or thought to be a bottleneck site where at least 20 000 pelicans and / or storks and / or

raptors and/ or cranes pass regularly during spring and / or autumn migration.”

Numerical criteria for IBA listing

Final identification of the IBAs requires definition of two main factors:

1. The number of birds breeding at each site by species, and whether these exceed the IBA designation criteria; and

2. The spatial extent of the site, or boundary of the IBA.

An IBA was identified where:

1. The count at an individual colony meets or exceeds the population thresholds set by BirdLife International for any of the species present at a site for any of the global Level A IBA criteria;

2. The result of summing the count at an individual colony for one or more species contained within a 5 km2 area, or

breeding on a landmass ≤ 5 km2, exceeds the species numbers threshold for global Level A criteria A4iii.

3. Individual colonies have been defined in accordance with the definitions given in the source data.

The count for each site is based on totals given in source data for individual colonies. These colonies are represented

within the database as points with an associated count. In some cases individual colonies are well-known and defined

within a specific location, while in others both the numbers and the spatial delineation of the colony are only poorly

defined. In some cases the spatial extent of the colony is unknown. Occasionally populations have been estimated

over a number of colonies which may be widely separated (e.g. by up to tens of kilometres), although only a total for

the area is given in the source data.

Thus, in many cases data on numbers have been pre-aggregated at source, and there is no means to disaggregate

according to specific colonies without going back to the original data and authors. Where possible, the presence and

location of colonies were verified against publicly available satellite imagery, for example using online tools such as

Google Earth and Wikimapia (http://wikimapia.org). However, the quality of available imagery is highly variable, and it

was not feasible to make an independent evaluation of every site within this study and in most cases the data used

are those available from the source.

Where specific colony boundaries are unknown, it has been assumed that the colony may be breeding on any part of

the ice-free land available at the locality where they have been reported (with the exception of Emperor Penguins, all

Antarctic birds require ice-free land on which to breed). In addition, in many cases the mapping of sites is poor and the

specific location of an outcrop or small island on which birds are breeding is poorly described or uncharted. In these

cases the location has to be estimated from available evidence, such as from reports, descriptions, maps and satellite

images.

In view of these difficulties, there was a need to define criteria for estimating the breeding area of colonies, and hence

the boundary of the IBA.


Page | 4

Table 1: Bird population thresholds required for IBA site designation1

Name Latin Name Red List

Status

IBA Criteria Pop Threshold

(pairs)2

Global Population

(individuals)

Global Population

(pairs)

Source

Emperor Penguin Aptenodytes forsteri NT A1, A4ii 2380 238 000 Fretwell et al. 2012

Gentoo Penguin Pygoscelis papua NT A1 3900 387 000 Lynch 2012

Adélie Penguin Pygoscelis adeliae NT A1, A4ii [20,000]

37 900

[1 830 000 -2 880 000]

3 790 000

[Woehler 1993, Woehler and

Croxall 1997] Lynch & La Rue

2014

Chinstrap Penguin Pygoscelis antarctica LC A4ii 27 000 8,000,000 ~2 666 667 World Bird Database, BirdLife Int.

Macaroni Penguin Eudyptes chrysolophus VU A1 1500 6 300 000 Crossin et al. 2013

Wilson’s Storm-

petrel

Oceanites oceanicus LC A4ii 70 000 12-30 000 000

~4-10 000 000 Brooke 2004

Black-bellied

Storm-petrel

Fregetta tropica LC A4ii 1600 500 000

~160 000 Brooke 2004

Light-mantled

Albatross

Phoebetria palpebrata NT A1, A4ii 10 (A1),

200 (A4ii)

87 000

~20 000 ACAP 2010a

Southern Giant

Petrel

Macronectes giganteus LC A4ii 500 ~50 000 ACAP 2010b

Southern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialoides LC A4ii 10 000 1 000 000 1 000 000 Creuwels el al. 2007

Antarctic Petrel Thalassoica antarctica LC A4ii 30 000 10-20 000 000 ~ 3 – 7 000 000 Brooke 2004

Cape Petrel Daption capense LC A4ii 6700 2 000 000 ~670 000 Brooke 2004

Snow Petrel Pagodroma nivea LC A4ii 13 000 4,000,000 ~1 300 000 Brooke 2004

1 Table 1 has been updated to reflect data published since the IBA assessment was completed for the Antarctic Peninsula (Harris et al. 2011). Where available data were based on estimated number of individuals, in order to take into account juveniles in the population, this has been divided by three to give mature pairs. 2 Population thresholds for each species vary according to which IBA selection criteria is being applied. Table 1 shows the minimum population threshold needed to satisfy one of the IBA criteria for each species, excluding the thresholds required to satisfy criterion A4iii. If criterion A4iii were considered, the threshold for species of Chinstrap and Adélie penguin, Snow Petrel, Wilson’s Storm-petrel, Antarctic Petrel and Antarctic Prion would fall to 10,000 pairs.


Page | 5

Name Latin Name Red List

Status

IBA Criteria Pop Threshold

(pairs)2

Global Population

(individuals)

Global Population

(pairs)

Source

Antarctic Prion Pachyptila desolata LC A4ii 166 000 50 000 000 ~16 600 000 Brooke 2004

Imperial

(Antarctic) Shag

Phalacrocorax [atriceps]

bransfieldensis

LC A4i 133 40 000

~13333 Waterbirds Population Estimates

IV - bransfieldensis treated as a

subsp of atriceps

Snowy (Greater)

Sheathbill

Chionis albus LC A4ii 100 10 000 10 000 Handbook of the Birds of the

World

Kelp Gull Larus dominicanus LC A4i 140 30 – 60 000

~10-20 000 Waterbirds Population Estimates

V [Antarctic Peninsula & Atlantic

sub-Antarctic Islands]

Antarctic Tern Sterna vittata LC A4i 366 110 000

~36 666 Waterbirds Population Estimates

III [S. v. gaini Antarctic Peninsula

and S Shetland Islands?]

South Polar Skua Catharacta maccormicki LC A4ii 50 10 000-19 999 ~3000-7500 World Bird Database, BirdLife Int.

Brown Skua Catharacta antarctica LC A4ii 75 10 000-19 999 ~3000-7500 World Bird Database, BirdLife Int.

Seabirds (including all species of penguin,

procellariiform, sheathbill and skua)

A4iii 10 000 N/A N/A

Waterbirds (including all species of shag, gull

and tern)

A4iii 10 000 N/A N/A


Page | 6

Criteria for defining the IBA boundary

Having identified IBAs based on population criteria, further criteria are needed to define the spatial extent of the IBA

boundary. Particular rules were defined for IBAs that coincide with existing protected areas because these are distinct,

legally agreed areas that have management plans to regulate activities within their boundaries. In the case of

Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs), permits are required for entry. In most cases where an IBA has been

identified within an ASPA, the site has been desginated at least in part because of its ornithological values.

If the IBA occurs within an Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA):

1. The boundary of the ASPA is used to define the IBA boundary.

If the IBA occurs within an Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMA):

1. Where the IBA occurs within a management zone designated by the ASMA, the boundary of the management zone is used to define the IBA boundary. For example, a number of Restricted Zones within ASMA No. 7 Palmer Basin and SW Anvers Island are identified as IBAs and the zone boundaries are used to define the IBA boundary.

2. Where the IBA occurs on distinct islands and one or more islands are contained within designated management zones, the IBA boundary is defined by the boundary of the management zones joined using the shortest practical perimeter.

If the IBA occurs outside of an ASPA or management zone within an ASMA:

1. Where data for birds triggering an IBA have been pre-aggregated over distinct islands, ice-free areas or a combination of ice-free areas and offshore islands and rocks, covering a total land area of >5 km

2, the IBA

boundary is drawn using the shortest perimeter such that all land areas over which data are aggregated are incorporated into the IBA, adjusting the perimeter where appropriate so that it is follows the land coastline and/or limit of the ice-free areas where these features fall inside the area bounded by the shortest perimeter.

2. Where a breeding site triggering an IBA is located on a feature not present in the SCAR Antarctic Digital Database (v 6.0) base map, where practical an approximation of that feature was digitised onto the map from satellite imagery, and where this was not possible a circular limit with a 1.26 km radius around the point marking the breeding site centroid is used to define the IBA boundary (i.e. 5 km

2);

3. Where birds triggering an IBA are known or thought to breed on an island of ≤5 km2, the island coastline is used

to define the IBA boundary;

4. Where birds triggering an IBA are known or thought to breed on distinct islands within an island group and the island group covers a land area of ≤5 km

2, the IBA boundary is drawn using the shortest perimeter such that all

islands within the group are incorporated into the IBA, adjusting the perimeter where appropriate so that it follows the island coastline. Note: where birds triggering an IBA breed both within an island group and on land outside of the island group, and the total land area for the island group + outside islands containing breeding birds covers ≤5 km

2, the island group and the islands containing breeding birds outside the island group will be

included in the IBA;

5. Where birds triggering an IBA are known or thought to breed on distinct ice-free areas with a contained geographic area and the ice-free areas covers a land area of ≤5 km

2, the IBA boundary is drawn using the

shortest perimeter such that all ice-free areas on which birds breed are incorporated into the IBA, adjusting the perimeter where appropriate so that it follows the coastline or limit of an ice-free area;

6. Where an IBA centroid is located on an ice-covered area on an island or other landmass that is >5 km2, the limit

of a 1.26 km radius around the IBA centroid, clipped to both the land coastline and the limit of the ice-free area, is used to define the IBA boundary.

7. Where two or more IBAs identified by the source data were less than 500 m in distance apart, these sites were assigned to belong within a single IBA comprising all sites.

It is recognised that the criteria used can result in clusters of IBAs within ‘close’ proximity. It would be entirely possible

to vary the minimum separation distance between IBAs to obtain an alternative result, for example by merging those

sites that are less than 1 km, or perhaps 10 or 20 km apart. Clearly, this would result in fewer, although larger IBAs. It

is acknowledged that the 500 m threshold used for merging sites is arbitrary. The approach taken seeks to preserve, as

far as practicable, the results offered given the resolution of the source data, and to minimise merging. However,

where two or more IBAs had been identified less than 500 m apart, there seemed little practical benefit to defining


Page | 7

the sites separately. Practical management of the sites, should it be required, would most likely need to consider such

adjacent sites as a unit. We have attempted to represent the source data as faithfully as possible, while being

pragmatic, although it is recognised that other minimum separation distances could be used.

If evidence emerges that supports the case to group identified IBAs into larger units based on alternative criteria, then

the analysis could be re-run to reflect the best scientific case for appropriate spatial units. For example, evidence for

merging IBAs may appear from new studies being conducted on the genetic similarities of spatially distributed

populations of the same species (T. Hart pers. comm. 2011), and further studies on foraging ranges and identified

feeding grounds out to sea, as opposed to concentrating on breeding localities, may inform alternative spatial

configurations for Antarctic IBAs in the future. For the moment, however, their remains insufficient data on which to

base such alternative configurations across the whole of the Antarctic, and there is a need for further research before

a practical set of IBAs boundaries could be defined that take such factors into account.

It should be noted that Emperor Penguins are less philopatric than land-breeding Antarctic birds, as their breeding

areas are highly dependent on sea-ice conditions in a given season, and may also be affected by major glacial events

such as calving, ice shelf cracking, or the movement of large icebergs, which can substantially alter traditional

breeding sites. As a result, while the birds return to the same general areas to breed each year, these may vary by

several to dozens of km over time. Moreover, the size and position of breeding areas often vary throughout the

season, and these may sub-divide into a number of sub-colonies. However, available data show that colonies tend to

re-occupy the same general locations on a regular basis, and as such their presence at the sites identified is reasonably

predictable. The spatial representation of IBAs for Emperor Penguin breeding sites is intended as an approximation

based on available data, and it is recognised that actual breeding sites will vary in both size and position from year to

year and within any given season.

Limitations in data sources

Recent assessments for several species using remote sensing (e.g. Barber-Meyer et al. 2007; Fretwell et al. 2012;

Schwaller et al. 2013; Lynch & LaRue 2014; Lynch & Schwaller 2014) offer a more complete, recent and synoptic view

of the status of Antarctic bird populations, in particular for penguins. Numerous colonies previously unknown have

been identified, some of which appear to comprise tens of thousands of breeding pairs. These studies have

significantly expanded our knowledge of the abundance and distribution of penguins, and this helps inform our view

of their conservation status. However, it should be noted that these techniques are relatively new, and results remain

subject to considerable margins of error compared to traditional nest counts made on the ground. Despite the

weaknesses apparent in the techniques, remote sensing remains the only practical means to gather data on a synoptic

scale for so many remote colonies, many of which are rarely, if ever, visited. In addition, remote sensing resolution,

image quality and processing techniques are improving rapidly, and it is anticipated that results will continue to

become more reliable. The technique offers great promise to become an increasingly important monitoring tool for

several penguin species. For these reasons, recent remote sensing studies have been utilised extensively in the IBA

assessment, and in some cases these are the only data available. However, the potential for considerable error to be

present in results from remote sensing is acknowledged. Therefore, where specific Confidence Intervals (CIs) are

available in the published sources, these have been presented along with the mean population count.

In general, counts presented in this report have been drawn direct from original sources. In some cases numbers in

these sources are given to a precision down to an individual bird (e.g. 5001, as opposed to ~5000), giving a false

impression of the degree of accuracy that actually exists in the source data. In this report, numbers have been quoted

as they appear without rounding, although it is acknowledged that these source data generally do not possess

accuracies to the individual bird. This practice has been adopted to provide an ‘audit trail’ so that readers can return

to original sources and make comparisons should they wish. We have found in compiling this report that this is often

helpful to trace the origin of a particular observation, and to identify errors.

Counts presented in this report are generally given as the number of breeding pairs. One exception to this rule has

been made for Emperor Penguin counts given in the study by Fretwell et al. (2012), who reported estimates of the

number of birds present at the time of image acquisition. Imagery used in this study was mostly acquired late in the

breeding season (Oct / Nov), at a time when many adults have departed and chicks remaining have light grey plumage


Page | 8

that is difficult to detect against the ice background. As a result, chicks at this time are almost invisible on satellite

images at current resolutions, and adults in evidence (which are likely to comprise both males and females) are not a

particularly reliable indicator of the size of the breeding population that was present earlier in the season (B.

Wienecke pers. comm. 2015). Thus, we have reported the number of birds in accordance with the data presented in

Fretwell et al. (2012), but have not presented these as ‘breeding pairs’. However, in order to determine whether a site

met the threshold of 2380 pairs (Table 1) to qualify as an IBA, the total number of birds given in Fretwell et al. (2012)

was assumed to provide a rough estimate of a minimum number of breeding pairs. In practice, it is highly likely these

are underestimates of the breeding populations at these sites for reasons given above, although for the purposes of

identifying whether or not the site qualifies as an IBA, this is currently the best estimate possible when using the

Fretwell et al. (2012) results. Because this is likely to be an underestimate, improved data would be likely to reaffirm

rather than refute IBA status, although it is recognised that considerable uncertainty remains over these results.

In this report the most reliable and recent counts available have been used for the purposes of determining whether a

site meets IBA criteria. Where several recent counts were available, for example from a ground count and from

satellite image analysis, both are presented. Where practicable, example historical data are also presented to provide

a better context against which to interpret the recent census results. In many cases, the only counts available are

those for a single year, and it is recognised that samples of this nature are subject to error because of the inter-annual

fluctuations in Antarctic bird breeding populations. In some studies, a mean colony count over a number of years has

been made, although this is the exception rather than the rule. For example, Lyver et al. (2014) calculated mean

counts for Adélie Penguin colonies in the Ross Sea over the periods for which census data were available, which varies

by colony. In other publications (e.g. Woehler 1993), census data originate from particular breeding seasons, reflecting

the size of colonies at particular points in time. Averaging census data offers the benefit of taking into account the

natural population fluctuations between years, and these results have been used where available in the current

assessment. However, where numbers are following a trend of increase or decline, the mean population may mask

the current status of a site. Some examples of where this is apparent have been noted in the report.

Review and comment on initial results

The initial draft list of IBAs prepared by SCAR in 2002 was compiled from data available at the time and by expert

judgement through a consultation process that involved several international workshops. The present study extended

this initial assessment by including more recent data and undertaking a formal spatial analysis of data to identify IBA

boundaries. In some cases, where time allowed, queries were raised with individual authors and / or data contributors

to resolve ambiguities in published data, for example over the existence, location or size of many colonies. In addition,

over the course of the present assessment drafts were distributed to a wide range of Antarctic bird experts for review

and comment. Numerous helpful comments were received and these have resulted in corrections and adjustments to

both published and unpublished data, sometimes allowing for finer analysis than would otherwise be possible using

the published sources, especially where source data had been spatially aggregated. Instances where this occurs have

been identified in the report as ‘unpublished data’ and / or by ‘Contributor, pers. comm., Year’. While ideally more of

this should be done, there were practical limits to the time and budget available for the current study, and this

constrained the extent to which the authors could further investigate and verify data in original sources for every site.

Several sites identified in Harris et al. (2011) no longer qualify and are shown as ‘de-listed’.

Results The results of the analysis confirmed 204 sites in the region meet the IBA designation criteria, as listed in Table 2. Site

locations are illustrated in Maps 1 - 8. Map 1 provides an overview of the distribution of IBAs across Antarctica, while

Maps 2-8 provide more detailed regional overviews. Site descriptions, summaries of the bird data on which the

assessment was made, and site maps showing colony locations are provided in the IBA Site Accounts.

Of the IBAs that coincide with ASPAs (Table 2), 27 lie within those ASPAs that have been designated for values mainly

or at least in part related to avifauna, three encompass or coincide with ASPAs protected for reasons other than

avifauna, such as historic or terrestrial values, while a further three lie on the boundary of a marine ASPA. Two sites

that no longer qualify as IBAs are designated ASPAs. Nine IBAs lie within three ASMAs (Table 2).


Page | 9

Table 2: List of breeding site IBAs in Antarctica.

IBA No. Location Trigger species (IBA criteria)

Former IBA No. (2011)

ASPA No.

ASMA No.

Comment

001 Larsen Is, Moreton Pt, western Coronation Island

Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii), Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

100

002 Gibbon Bay, Coronation Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 096

003 Eillium Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 083

004 Weddell Islands Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

005 Pirie Peninsula, Laurie Island Imperial Shag (A4i) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

085

006 Ferguslie Peninsula, Laurie Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 086

007 Watson Peninsula, Laurie Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 087

008 Fraser Point, Laurie Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 088

009 Buchanan Point, Laurie Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 089

010 Ferrier Peninsula / Graptolite Island, Laurie Island

Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

090

011 Cape Whitson, Laurie Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 080

012 Point Martin, Laurie Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin, Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

081

013 Islet SW of Cape Davidson, Laurie Island Imperial Shag (A4i) 082

014 Cape Robertson, Laurie Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 084

015 Southern Powell Island and adjacent islands Gentoo Penguin (A1, A4ii) Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) Imperial Shag (A4i) Southern Giant Petrel (A4ii) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

093 111

016 Atriceps Island, Robertson Islands Imperial Shag (A4i) 091

017 Robertson Islands Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

092

018 Shingle Cove, Coronation Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 097

019 Signy Island Imperial Shag (A4i) Southern Giant Petrel (A4ii) Wilson's Storm-petrel (A4ii) Brown Skua (A4ii)

095


Page | 10



ASPA No.

ASMA No.

Comment

Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

020 Moe Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 094 109

021 Gosling Islands Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 098

022 Return Point / Cheal Point, Coronation Island Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

099

023 Inaccessible Islands Southern Fulmar (A4ii) Seabirds – Southern Fulmar (A4iii)

101

024 Sugarloaf Island, Clarence Island Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

079

025 Cape Bowles, Clarence Island Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

076

026 Craggy Point, Clarence Island Macaroni Penguin (A1) Southern Fulmar (A4ii) Seabirds – Southern Fulmar (A4iii)

077

027 Chinstrap Cove, Clarence Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 078

028 Seal Islands Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 075

029 Saddleback Point, Elephant Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 072

030 Point west of Walker Point, Elephant Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 073

031 Mount Elder, Elephant Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 074

032 Point west of Cape Lookout, Elephant Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 070

033 Point Wordie, Elephant Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 071

034 Gibbs Island Macaroni Penguin (A1) Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) Southern Fulmas (A4ii) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

069

035 Aspland Island / Eadie Island Southern Fulmar (A4ii) Seabirds – Southern Fulmar, Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

067

036 O'Brien Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 068

Stigant Point, King George Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 054 delisted

037 Eastern Litwin Bay, King George Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 055

038 Tartar Island, King George Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 056


Page | 11



ASPA No.

ASMA No.

Comment

039 Kellick Island, King George Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 057

040 Owen Island, King George Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 058

041 Pottinger Point, King George Island Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

059

042 False Round Point, King George Island Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

060

043 Milosz Point / Czeslaw Point, King George Island

Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 061

044 North Foreland, King George Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 062

Cape Melville, King George Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 063 delisted

Penguin Island, King George Island Southern Giant Petrel (A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie & Chinstrap Penguins (A4iii)

064 delisted

Lions Rump, King George Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 065 151 delisted

045 Point Hennequin, King George Island South Polar Skua (A4ii) 001

046 West Admiralty Bay, King George Island Gentoo Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie, Chinstrap & Gentoo Penguins (A4iii)

066 128 001

047 Potter Peninsula, King George Island South Polar Skua (A4ii) 052 132

048 Ardley Island, King George Island Gentoo Penguin (A1, A4ii) 053 150

049 Harmony Point, Nelson Island Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) Gentoo Penguin (A1, A4ii) Greather sheathbill (A4ii) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

051 133

050 Heywood Island Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

050

051 Yankee Harbour, Greenwich Island Gentoo Penguin (A1, A4ii) 049

052 Half Moon Island South Polar Skua (A4ii) 048

053 Barnard Point, Livingston Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 047

054 Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island Antarctic tern (A4i) Kelp Gull (A4i)

045 126

Cape Shirreff, Livingston Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 046 149 delisted

055 Baily Head, Deception Island Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) 044 004


Page | 12



ASPA No.

ASMA No.

Comment

Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

056 Vapour Col, Deception Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 043 004

057 Cape Wallace, Low Island Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

041 ASPA 152 protects adjacent marine area

058 Cape Hooker, Low Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 042

059 Cape Garry, Low Island Chinstrap Penguin (A4ii) Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii)

039 ASPA 152 protects adjacent marine area

060 Jameson Point, Low Island Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 040 ASPA 152 protects adjacent marine area

061 Ambush Bay, Joinville Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

062 Danger Islands Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

036

063 Brash Island, Danger Islands Pygoscelis Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Pygoscelis Penguin (A4iii)

064 Earle Island, Danger Islands Seabirds – Pygoscelis Penguin (A4iii)

065 Eden Rocks Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

035

066 Paulet Island Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Imperial Shag (A4i) Seabirds - Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

034

067 D'Urville Monument, Joinville Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 037

068 Madder Cliffs, Joinville Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 038

069 Snow Hill Island Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii) 030

070 Penguin Point, Seymour Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 031

071 Cockburn Island Imperial Shag (A4i) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

032

072 Devil Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 033

073 Brown Bluff Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 029

074 Hope Bay Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

028

075 Gourdin Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 027

076 Duroch Islands Seabirds – Adélie, Chinstrap & Gentoo Penguins (A4iii)

026


Page | 13



ASPA No.

ASMA No.

Comment

077 Tupinier Islands Seabirds – Chinstrap Penguin (A4iii) 025

078 Pearl Rocks Imperial Shag (A4i) 024

079 Cape Wollaston, Trinity Island Southern Fulmar (A4ii) Seabirds – Southern Fulmar (A4iii)

023

080 SW Trinity Island Imperial Shag (A4i) 022

081 Cierva Point & offshore islands South Polar Skua (A4ii) 021 134

082 Bluff Island Imperial Shag (A4i) 020

083 Cuverville Island Gentoo Penguin (A1, A4ii) 018

084 Islet E of Guépratte Island Imperial Shag (A4i) 019

Pursuit Point Imperial Shag (A4i) 011 delisted

085 Cormorant Island Imperial Shag (A4i) 012 007

Arthur Harbor North Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 013 007 delisted

086 Litchfield Island South Polar Skua (A4ii) 014 113 007

087 Joubin Islands Imperial Shag (A4i) 015 007

Dream Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 016 007 delisted

088 Islet south of Gerlache Island Gentoo Penguin (A1, A4ii) 017 007

089 Petermann Island Gentoo Penguin (A1, A4ii) 010

090 Uruguay Island Imperial Shag (A4i) 009

091 Islet S of Bates Island Imperial Shag (A4i) 008

092 Island N of Dodman Island Imperial Shag (A4i) 006

093 Armstrong Reef Imperial Shag (A4i) 007

094 Cape Evensen Imperial Shag (A4i) 005

095 Avian Island Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Imperial Shag (A4i) South Polar Skua (A4ii) Southern Giant Petrel (A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

003 117

096 Ginger Islands Imperial Shag (A4i) 004

097 Emperor Island, Dion Islands Imperial Shag (A4i) 002 107

098 Lagotellerie Island Imperial Shag (A4i) 115

099 Stonington Island Imperial Shag (A4i) 001

100 Smith Peninsula Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)


Page | 14



ASPA No.

ASMA No.

Comment

101 NW Berkner Island (Gould Bay) Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

102 Coalseam Cliffs / Mount Faraway Seabirds – Antarctic Petrel (A4iii)

103 Luitpold Coast Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

104 Dawson-Lambton Glacier Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

105 Brunt Ice Shelf (‘Halley Bay’) Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Emperor Penguin (A4iii)

106 Stancomb-Wills Glacier Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

107 Drescher Inlet (Dreschereisfrontkerbe) Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

108 Riiser-Larsen Ice Shelf Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

109 Atka Iceport Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

110 Muskegbukta Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

111 Jutulsessen Antarctic Petrel (A4ii) Seabirds – Antarctic Petrel (A4iii)

112 Svarthamaren Antarctic Petrel (A4ii) South Polar Skua (A4ii) Seabirds – Antarctic Petrel (A4iii)

142

113 Gruber Mountains Seabirds – Snow Petrel (A4iii)

114 Princess Ragnhild Coast Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

115 Riiser-Larsen Peninsula Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

116 Mount Biscoe Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

117 Cape Batterbee Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

118 Kloa Point Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

119 Taylor Rookery Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii) 101

120 Gibbney Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

121 Rookery Islands Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

102

122 Klung Island / Welch Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

123 Andersen Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

124 Kirton Island / Macklin Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

125 Auster Rookery Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

126 Scullin Monolith & Murray Monolith Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Antarctic Petrel (A4ii)

164


Page | 15



ASPA No.

ASMA No.

Comment

Seabirds – Antarctic Petrel (A4iii)

127 Cape Darnley Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

128 Amanda Bay Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii) 169

129 Caro Island, Rauer Islands Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

130 Hop Island, Rauer Islands Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

131 Filla Island, Rauer Islands Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

132 Kazak Island / Zolotov Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

133 Unnamed island at Donskiye Islands Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

134 Warriner Island, Donskiye Islands Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

135 Gardner Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

136 Magnetic Island and nearby islands Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

137 Lucas Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

138 Rookery Lake / W Long Peninsula Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

139 Tryne Islands Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

140 West Ice Shelf Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

141 Haswell Island Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii) South Polar Skua (A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

127

142 Shackleton Ice Shelf Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

143 Peterson Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

144 Holl Island / O'Connor Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

145 Ardery Island / Odbert Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin, Southern Fulmar (A4iii)

103

146 Shirley Island / Beall Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

147 Clark Peninsula Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 136

148 Berkley Island / Cameron Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

149 Dibble Glacier Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Emperor Penguin (A4iii)

150 Pointe Géologie Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii) Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii)

120


Page | 16



ASPA No.

ASMA No.

Comment

Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

151 Cape Bienvenue Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

152 Cape Jules Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

153 Île des Manchots / Empereur Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 166 ASPA protects historic features

154 Curzon Islands Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

155 Cape Hunter Seabirds – Adélie Penguin, Antarctic Petrel (A4iii)

156 MacKellar Islands Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

157 Cape Denison Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii) 162 ASPA protects historic features, avifauna and other environmental values

158 Way Archipelago Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

159 Cape Pigeon Rocks Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

160 Mertz Glacier Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

161 Kartografov Island / Mount Archer Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

162 Arthurson Ridge Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

163 Sturge Island Southern Fulmar (A4ii) Seabirds – Southern Fulmar (A4iii)

164 Duke of York Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

165 Cape Adare Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) South Polar Skua (A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

159 ASPA protects historic features

166 Downshire Cliffs Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

167 Possession Island Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) South Polar Skua (A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

168 Foyn Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

169 Cape Roget Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

170 Seabee Hook, Cape Hallett Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

106


Page | 17



ASPA No.

ASMA No.

Comment

171 Cotter Cliffs Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

172 Mandible Cirque Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

173 Cape Wadworth, Coulman Island Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Emperor Penguin (A4iii)

174 Cape Main, Coulman Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

175 Edmonson Point South Polar Skua (A4ii) 165

176 Cape Washington Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii) South Polar Skua (A4ii) Seabirds – Emperor Penguin (A4iii)

173

177 Adélie Cove Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

178 Inexpressible Island South Polar Skua (A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

179 Depot Island South Polar Skua (A4ii)

180 Gregory Island South Polar Skua (A4ii)

181 Dunlop Island South Polar Skua (A4ii)

182 Blue Glacier to Cape Chocolate South Polar Skua (A4ii) 002

183 Dailey Islands South Polar Skua (A4ii)

184 Rocky Point, Ross Island South Polar Skua (A4ii)

185 Macdonald Beach, Cape Bird South Polar Skua (A4ii), Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

186 Caughley Beach, Cape Bird Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) South Polar Skua (A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

116 ASPA protects terrestrial ecology

187 Cape Crozier, Ross Island Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) South Polar Skua (A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

124

188 Beaufort Island Adélie Penguin (A1,A4ii) South Polar Skua (A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

105

189 Bernacchi Head, Franklin Island Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

190 SW Franklin Island Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) South Polar Skua (A4ii)


Page | 18



ASPA No.

ASMA No.

Comment

Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

191 Cape Colbeck Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Emperor Penguin (A4iii)

192 Mount Paterson Seabirds – Antarctic Petrel (A4iii)

193 Worley Point, Shepard Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

194 Mathewson Point, Shepard Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

195 Maher Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

196 Thurston Glacier Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

197 Hummer Point, Bear Peninsula Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

198 Brownson Islands Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

199 Edwards Islands Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

200 Schaefer Islands Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

201 Lindsey Islands Adélie Penguin (A1, A4ii) Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

202 Sikorski Glacier, Noville Peninsula Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)

203 Sims Island Seabirds – Adélie Penguin (A4iii)

204 Scorseby Head, Smyley Island Emperor Penguin (A1, A4ii)


Page | 19

Overview and regional maps Map 1 provides an overview of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Antarctica identified on the basis of breeding site data

against the BirdLife International / SCAR agreed criteria. The numbering system commences in the South Orkney

Islands (at ANT001), proceeds southward through the South Shetland Islands and further south along the Antarctic

Peninsula to Marguerite Bay, and thence from the Weddell Sea (at ANT100) in a clockwise direction around to the

Bellingshausen Sea (at ANT204), with the indicative numbering shown. Following maps (Maps 2 – 8) provide more

detail, illustrating the distribution of IBAs across Antarctica on a regional basis with a series of more local insets. Local

maps showing the IBA boundaries are presented in the Site Accounts (not provided in Summary Report).


Page | 20


Page | 21


Page | 22


Page | 23


Page | 24


Page | 25


Page | 26


Page | 27

Site accounts – not provided in Summary The IBAs identified in this Summary are described in detailed Site Accounts contained in the complete volume of

Important Bird Areas in Antarctica 2015. The Site Accounts provide information on the bird species present and

numbers breeding at each site according to best available data, as well as summary information on the main features

of the environment at each IBA. Observations of other endemic wildlife are noted, and any specific conservation

issues that exist at sites are identified. References for further reading pertinent to each site are also provided. The

complete volume of Important Bird Areas in Antarctica 2015 is available online at BirdLife International and

Environmental Research & Assessment.

http://www.birdlife.org/http://www.era.gs/resources/iba


Page | 28

Conclusion The list of IBAs presented in this report identifies 204 breeding sites that meet the global IBA criteria in Antarctica. The

Site Accounts provided in the full report describe for each IBA the bird species present and their numbers, key

features of the local environment, other wildlife present, potential conservation issues, and provides references to

further data and descriptions. The Site Accounts include maps showing the IBA boundaries in their local context,

including prominent physical features, nearby research stations, and protected areas in the vicinity.

Birds in Antarctica are subjected to a range of local and global threats to their health and survival, including direct

disturbance to breeding by visitors, disturbance by aircraft or vehicles, accumulation of pollutants, exposure to

hydrocarbon pollution as a result of both minor and major spills (Penhale et al. 1997), ingestion of or fouling by

marine debris discarded in the Southern Ocean or further afield, competition for prey from fisheries, accidental by-

catch on fishing lines or in nets, introduction of disease from other parts of the world (e.g. fowl cholera), and from

large-scale changes to ecosystems as a result of global environmental change.

Climate change may constitute the greatest threat to avifauna in the region, and has potential to pervade the entire

region. The western Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a rapid increase in temperatures since the 1940s (Smith et al.

1996), resulting in a loss of sea ice in this region and changes in ecosystem structure, affecting Adélie Penguins and

other species that depend on the presence of sea ice (Ducklow et al. 2007). For example, Adélie colony sizes on the

western Antarctic Peninsula have reduced significantly over the last 30 years, possibly linked to a warming climate

causing sea ice loss, as well as reduced prey availability and changes in snow accumulation rates (Emslie et al. 1998;

McClintock et al. 2008; Trivelpiece & Fraser 1996). However, there is some evidence that changes in climate may be

having a positive effect on other species, e.g. a southward expansion of the Gentoo Penguin breeding range in the

Anvers Island area (Emslie et al. 1998), while elsewhere in parts of East Antarctica and the Ross Sea the extent of sea

ice and Adélie Penguin numbers seem to be increasing (Lynch & LaRue 2014; Lyver et al. 2014), while Emperor

Penguins may be stable in some regions (Barber-Mayer et al. 2008) and declining in others (Barbraud et al. 2011).

The purpose of this IBA assessment has not, however, been to investigate – much less to explain – the pressures and

changes to which Antarctic birds are subject. Suffice to say that these cumulative pressures pose a significant

challenge to Antarctic birds. Rather, the intention is to draw attention to those sites in Antarctica that, according to

best available data, possess breeding colonies of birds in such numbers that they qualify as IBAs according to the

standard methodology developed and customised by BirdLife International in collaboration with SCAR.

The Important Bird Area programme was originally established by BirdLife International more than 35 years ago to

provide a means of identifying sites of international conservation significance for the world’s birds. To date more than

12 000 IBAs covering over 200 countries have been documented and delineated globally. To achieve this, BirdLife

International worked closely with organisations and individuals in the countries concerned, resulting in publication of

seven continental or regional IBA inventories and over 130 national or sub-national directories. Collectively, IBAs now

cover ~5.2% of the world’s land surface. All data are held in BirdLife’s dedicated World Bird Database and further

information is available through the Data Zone of the BirdLife website (http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/site).

All sites documented in these works were identified using a standardized set of data-driven criteria and thresholds.

These ensure a consistent approach worldwide. The four criteria are based upon the confirmed regular presence at

sites of more than threshold numbers of globally threatened species, groups of species of restricted range, species

assemblages confined to a single biome and congregations of one or more species. These criteria have been used

successfully over the past three decades and have proved remarkably effective and versatile in all environments

where they have been applied.

Continental Antarctica, together with offshore island groups such as the South Shetland, South Orkney and Balleny

islands, represented a significant gap in the global coverage of IBAs in the terrestrial environment. The current study

has, for the first time, assembled and analysed available data on the avifauna of Antarctica according to the standard

IBA criteria to identify and describe those sites that possess characteristics that indicate they are of particular

importance to species conservation.

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/site


Page | 29

Online resources Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) Data Portal – Southern Giant Petrel.

URL: http://data.acap.aq/taxon_profile.cfm?taxa_code=MAI#P16 – Accessed 02/09/2010.

Antarctic Treaty System Visitor Site Guidelines, Brown Bluff:

URL http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Brown_e.pdf – Accessed 10/05/2011.

Antarctic Treaty System Visitor Site Guidelines, Cuverville Island:

URL: http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Cuverville_e.pdf – Accessed 13/08/2010.

Antarctic Treaty System Visitor Site Guidelines, Devil Island:

URL http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Devil_e.pdf – Accessed 10/05/2011.

Antarctic Treaty System Visitor Site Guidelines: Half Moon Island:

URL: http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Half_moon_e.pdf – Accessed 06/08/2010.

Antarctic Treaty System Visitor Site Guidelines: Mawson’s Huts and Cape Denison.

URL: http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/2014/Mawson's Huts and Cape Denison_e.pdf – Accessed

06/04/2015.

Antarctic Treaty System Visitor Site Guidelines, Paulet Island:

URL: http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Paulet_e.pdf – Accessed 06/08/2010.

Antarctic Treaty Visitor Site Guidelines, Penguin Island:

URL: http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Penguin_e.pdf – Accessed 06/08/2010.

Antarctic Treaty System Visitor Site Guidelines, Petermann Island:

URL http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Petermann_e.pdf – Accessed 10/05/2011.

Antarctic Treaty System Visitor Site Guidelines, Shingle Cove:

URL: http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/shingle_cove_e.pdf – Accessed 05/04/2015.

Antarctic Treaty System Visitor Site Guidelines: Stonington Island:

URL: http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Stonington_island_e.pdf – Accessed 06/08/2010.

Antarctic Treaty System Visitor Site Guidelines, Yankee Harbour:

URL: http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Yankee_e.pdf – Accessed 04/08/2010.

British Antarctic Survey, Signy Island Research Station. BAS, Cambridge:

URL: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/living_and_working/research_stations/signy/ – Accessed 02/09/2010.

Coats, L. 2010. Antarctic field season 2010: update #4: Cape Bird:

URL: http://www.coplateau.com/Update4_Cape_Bird.html – Accessed 30/01/2015.

Council of Managers for National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP). Antarctic Facilities:

URL: https://www.comnap.aq/facilities – Accessed 22/04/2010.

International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO). Tourism Statistics:

URL: http://www.iaato.org/tourism_stats.html – Accessed 2010-15.

International Polar Foundation 2015:

URL:http://www.antarcticstation.org/news_press/press_release/newly_discovered_emperor_penguin_colon

y_receives_first_human_visitors – Accessed 25/01/2015.

Palmer LTER project:

URL: http://pal.lternet.edu/ – Accessed 04/08/2010.

http://data.acap.aq/taxon_profile.cfm?taxa_code=MAI#P16http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Brown_e.pdfhttp://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Cuverville_e.pdfhttp://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Devil_e.pdfhttp://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Half_moon_e.pdfhttp://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/2014/Mawson's%20Huts%20and%20Cape%20Denison_e.pdfhttp://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Paulet_e.pdfhttp://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Penguin_e.pdfhttp://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Petermann_e.pdfhttp://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/shingle_cove_e.pdfhttp://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Stonington_island_e.pdfhttp://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/Yankee_e.pdfhttp://www.antarctica.ac.uk/living_and_working/research_stations/signy/http://www.coplateau.com/Update4_Cape_Bird.htmlhttps://www.comnap.aq/facilitieshttp://www.iaato.org/tourism_stats.htmlhttp://www.antarcticstation.org/news_press/press_release/newly_discovered_emperor_penguin_colony_receives_first_human_visitorshttp://www.antarcticstation.org/news_press/press_release/newly_discovered_emperor_penguin_colony_receives_first_human_visitorshttp://pal.lternet.edu/


Page | 30

Protected and Managed Area Management Plans

Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMA)

ASMA No. 1 Admiralty Bay, King George Island: Management Plan 2014.

ASMA No. 4 Deception Island, South Shetland Islands: Management Plan 2005. Includes Conservation Strategy for

Historic Site and Monument No. 71, Whalers Bay, Deception Island 2005.

ASMA No. 7 Southwest Anvers Island and Palmer Basin: Management Plan 2009.

Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA)

ASPA No. 101 Taylor Rookery, Mac.Robertson Land: Management Plan 2010.

ASPA No. 102 Rookery Islands, Holme Bay, Mac.Robertson Land: Management Plan 2010.

ASPA No. 103 Ardery Island and Odbert Island, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land: Management Plan 2010.

ASPA No. 104 Sabrina Island, Balleny Islands: Management Plan 2015.

ASPA No. 105 Beaufort Island, McMurdo Sound, Ross Sea: Management Plan 2010.

ASPA No. 106 Cape Hallett, Northern Victoria Land, Ross Sea: Management Plan 2010.

ASPA No. 107 Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula: Management Plan 2002.

ASPA No. 109 Moe Island, South Orkney Islands: Management Plan 2007.

ASPA No. 111 Southern Powell Island and adjacent islands, South Orkney Islands: Management Plan 2012.

ASPA No. 113 Litchfield Island, Arthur Harbour, Anvers Island, Antarctic Peninsula: Management Plan 2014.

ASPA No. 116 New College Valley, Caughley Beach, Cape Bird: Management Plan 2011.

ASPA No. 117 Avian Island, off Adelaide Island, Antarctic Peninsula: Management Plan 2013.

ASPA No. 120 Pointe-Géologie Archipelago, Terre Adélie: Management Plan 2011.

ASPA No. 124 Cape Crozier, Ross Island: Management Plan 2014.

ASPA No. 126 Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands: Management Plan 2002

ASPA No. 127 Haswell Island: Management Plan 2011.

ASPA No. 128 Western shore of Admiralty Bay, King George Island: Management Plan 2014.

ASPA No. 132 Potter Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands: Management Plan 2013.

ASPA No. 133 Harmony Point, Nelson Island, South Shetland Islands: Management Plan 2005.

ASPA No. 134 Cierva Point and offshore islands, Danco Coast, Antarctic Peninsula: Management Plan 2006.

ASPA No. 136 Clark Peninsula, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land, East Antarctica: Management Plan 2014.

ASPA No. 140 Parts of Deception Island, South Shetland Islands: Management Plan 2005.

ASPA No. 142 Svarthamaren: Management Plan 2014.

ASPA No. 145 Port Foster, Deception Island, South Shetland Islands: Management Plan 2005.

ASPA No. 148 Mount Flora, Hope Bay, Antarctic Peninsula: Management Plan 2002.

ASPA No. 149 Cape Shirreff, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands: Management Plan 2011.

ASPA No. 150 Ardley Island, Maxwell Bay, King George Island: Management Plan 2009.

ASPA No. 151 Lions Rump, King George Island, South Shetland Islands: Management Plan 2000.

ASPA No. 152 Western Bransfield Strait off Low Island, South Shetland Islands: Management Plan 2010.

ASPA No. 159 Cape Adare, Borchgrevink Coast: Management Plan 2010.

ASPA No. 162 Mawson’s Huts, Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay, George V Land, East Antarctica: Management Plan 2014.

ASPA No. 164 Scullin and Murray Monoliths, Mac.Robertson Land: Management Plan 2010.

ASPA No. 165 Edmonson Point, Wood Bay, Victoria Land, Ross Sea: Management Plan 2011.

ASPA No. 169 Amanda Bay, Ingrid Christensen Coast, Princess Elizabeth Land, East Antarctica: Management Plan 2014.

ASPA No. 173 Cape Washington and Silverfish Bay, Northern Terra Nova Bay, Ross Sea: Management Plan 2013.

CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program (CEMP)

CEMP No.1 Seal Islands: Management Plan 2004. CCAMLR Conservation Measure 91-03.

CEMP No.2 Cape Shirreff and the San Telmo Islands: Management Plan 2004. CCAMLR Conservation Measure 91-02.


Page | 31

Map references Australian Antarctic Data Centre. 2001. Rookery Islands (SPA 2). Scale 1:20 000. Edition 1. Catalogue ID 12738.

Australian Antarctic Data Centre. 2010. Cape Denison, Scale 1: 5000. Edition 3. Catalogue ID 13575.

Australian Antarctic Data Centre. 2012. Vestfold Hills Map 1 of 5, Scale 1: 50 000. Edition 6. Catalogue ID 13979.



Australian Antarctic Data Centre. 2012. Windmill Islands Map 2 of 5, Scale 1: 50 000. Edition 6. Catalogue ID 14111.

Australian Antarctic Data Centre. 2012. Windmill Islands Map 3 of 5, Scale 1: 50 000. Edition 6. Catalogue ID 14112.

Australian Antarctic Data Centre. 2014. Casey: recreational limits, Scale 1: 15 500. Edition 5. Catalogue ID 14295.

Australian Antarctic Data Centre. 2014. Mawson fixed wing suggested flight paths. Scale 1:70 000. Edition 3. Catalogue

ID 14308.

Bibliography ACAP (Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels) 2010a. ACAP Species assessments: Light-mantled

Albatross Phoebetria palpebrata. Downloaded from http://www.acap.aq on 12/03/2015.

ACAP (Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels) 2010b. ACAP Species assessment: Southern Giant

Petrel Macronectes giganteus. Downloaded from http://www.acap.aq on 12/03/2015.

Aguirre, C.A. 1995. Distribution and abundance of birds at Potter Peninsula, 25 de Mayo (King George) Island, South

Shetland Islands, Antarctica. Marine Ornithology 23: 23–31.

Ainley, D.G., Morrell, S.H. & Wood, R.C. 1986. South Polar Skua breeding colonies in the Ross Sea region. Notornis 33:

155-63.

Allison, J.S. & Smith, R.I.L. 1973. The vegetation of Elephant Island, South Shetland Islands. British Antarctic Survey

Bulletin 33 & 34: 185–212.

Alonso, J.C., Johnstone, G.W., Hindell, M., Osborne, P. & Guard, R. 1987. Las aves del Monolito Scullin, Antartida

Oriental. Actas del segundo Syposium Español de Estudios Antárticos: Madrid, 13 – 15 Julio, 1987.

Ancel, A., Cristofari, R., Fretwell, P.T., Trathan, P.N., Wienecke, B., Boureau, M., Morinay, J., Blanc, S., Le Maho, Y. & Le

Bohec, C. 2014. Emperors in hiding: when ice-breakers and satellites complement each other in Antarctic

exploration. PLoS ONE 9(6): 1–8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100404

Ardley, R.A.B. 1936. The birds of the South Orkney Islands. Discovery Reports 12: 349-76.

Arnould, J.P.Y. & Whitehead, M.D. 1991. The diet of Antarctic Petrels, Cape Petrels and Southern Fulmars rearing

chicks in Prydz Bay. Antarctic Science 3: 19–27.

Baker, S.C. & Barbraud, C. 2001. Foods of the South Polar Skua Catharacta maccormicki at Ardery Island, Windmill

Islands, Antarctica. Polar Biology 24(1): 59–61. doi:10.1007/s003000000163

Barber-Meyer, S.M., Kooyman, G.L. & Ponganis, P.J. 2007. Estimating the relative abundance of Emperor Penguins at

inaccessible colonies using satellite imagery. Polar Biology 30: 1565-70.

Barber-Meyer, S.M., Kooyman, G.L. & Ponganis, P.J. 2008. Trends in western Ross Sea Emperor Penguin chick

abundances and their relationships to climate. Antarctic Science 20(01): 3–11.

doi:10.1017/S0954102007000673

Barbraud, C. & Baker, S.C. 1998. Short Communication: Fulmarine petrels and South Polar Skua Catharacta

maccormicki populations on Ardery Island, Windmill Islands, Antarctica. Emu 98: 234–36.

Barbraud, C., Delord, K.C., Micol, T. & Jouventin, P. 1999. First census of breeding seabirds between Cap Bienvenue

(Terre Adélie) and Moyes Islands (King George V Land), Antarctica: new records for Antarctic seabird

populations. Polar Biology 21: 146–50.

Barbraud, C., Gavrilo, M., Mizin, Y. & Weimerskirch, H. 2011. Comparison of Emperor Penguin declines between

Pointe Géologie and Haswell Island over the past 50 years. Antarctic Science 23(5): 461–68.

Barbraud, C. & Weimerskirch, H. 2001. Emperor penguins and climate change. Nature 411: 183–85. Bassett, J.A., Woehler, E.J., Ensor, P.H., Kerry, K.R. & Johnstone, G.W. 1989. Short Communication: Adélie Penguins

and Antarctic Petrels at Mount Biscoe, Western Enderby Land, Antarctica. Emu 90: 58–60.

http://www.acap.aq/http://www.acap.aq/


Page | 32

Beck, J.R. & Brown, D.W. 1972. The biology of Wilson’s Storm-petrel, Oceanites oceanicus (Kuhl), at Signy Island, South

Orkney Islands. British Antarctic Survey Scientific Reports 69. BAS, London.

Bonner, W.N. & Lewis Smith, R.I. (eds) 1985. Conservation areas in the Antarctic. Review prepared by the Sub-

Committee of Conservation, Working Group on Biology. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research,

Cambridge.

Bornemann, H., Kreyscher, M., Ramdohr, S., Martin, T., Carlini, A., Sellmann, L. & Plötz, J. 2000. Southern elephant seal

movements and Antarctic sea ice. Antarctic Science 12(1): 3–15.

Bradford-Grieve, J. & Fenwick, G. 2002. A review of the current knowledge describing the biodiversity of the Balleny

Islands. Final Research Report for National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited. Auckland,

New Zealand. Unpublished report for the Ministry of Fisheries. Wellingon, New Zealand.

Branco, J.O., Costa, E.S., de Araujo, J., Edison, D. & Alves, M.A.S. 2009. Kelp Gulls, Larus dominicanus (Aves: Laridae),

breeding in Keller Peninsula, King George Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Zoologia 26 (3): 562 – 566.

Bricher, P.K., Lucieer, A. & Woehler, E.J. 2008. Population trends of Adélie Penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae) breeding

colonies: a spatial analysis of the effects of snow accumulation and human activities. Polar Biology 31(11):

1397–407. doi:10.1007/s00300-008-0479-z

Broady, P.A. 1979. The terrestrial algae of Signy Island, South Orkney Islands. British Antarctic Survey Scientific Reports

98. BAS, London.

Broady, P.A., Adams, C.J., Cleary, P.J. & Weaver, S.D. 1989. Ornithological observations at Edward VII Peninsula,

Antarctica, in 1987-88. Notornis 36(1): 53-61.

Brodie, J.W. 1959. A shallow shelf around Franklin Island in the Ross Sea, Antarctica. New Zealand Journal of Geology

and Geophysics 2(1): 108–119. doi:10.1080/00288306.1959.10431316

Brook, D. & Beck, J.R.1972. Antarctic Petrels, Snow Petrels and South Polar Skuas breeding in the Theron Mountains.

British Antarctic Survey Bulletin 27: 131–37.

Brooke, M. de L. 2004. Albatrosses and petrels across the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bruce, G. & Furse, C. 1973. Elephant Island Joint Services Expedition 1970-71. Ornithological Report. BAS Archives Doc.

1999/33/45.

Budd, G.M. 1961. The biotopes of emperor penguin rookeries. Emu 61: 171–89.

Budd, G.M. 1962. Population studies in rookeries of the Emperor Penguin Aptenodytes forsteri. Proceedings of the

Zoological Society of London 139: 365-88.

Carlini, A.R., Poljak, S., Casaux, R., Daneri, G.A. & Gasco, M. 2003. Southern elephant seals breeding at Nelson Island

South Shetland Islands. Polish Polar Research 24(2): 143-47.

Casanovas, P., Naveen, R., Forrest, S., Poncet, J. & Lynch, H.J. in press. A comprehensive coastal seabird survey maps

out the front lines of ecological change on the western Antarctic Peninsula. Polar Biology.

CCAMLR. 1999. Report of member’s activities in the Convention Area 1998/99: Italy. CCAMLR-XVIII/MA/14.

CCAMLR 2007. Report of the Twenty-sixth Meeting of the Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic

Marine Living Resources held in Hobart, Australia, 22 – 26 October 2007.

Ciaputa, P. & Sierakowski, K. 1999. Long-term population changes of Adélie, chinstrap, and gentoo penguins in the

regions of SSSI No. 8 and SSSI No. 34, King George Island, Antarctica. Polish Polar Research 20(4): 355–65.

Climate and Hydrology Database Projects (CLIMDB/HYDRODB), Palmer Station. Supported by the Long-Term Ecological

Research program and the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. URL:

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/climhy/. Accessed: 16/08/2010.

Convey, P., Hopkins, D.W., Roberts, S.J. & Tyler, N. 2011. Global southern limit of flowering plants and moss peat

accumulation. Polar Research 30. DOI: 10.3402/polar.v30i0.8929.

Cooper, J. 1985. Adélie penguins breeding in eastern Enderby Land, Antarctica. Emu 85: 205–06.

Coria, N.R & Montalti, D. 1993. Flying birds at Esperanza Bay, Antarctica. Polish Polar Research 14 (4): 433-39.

Coria, N.R., Blendinger, P.G. & Monta

Documents

Important Bird Areas in Antarctica · Important Bird Areas in Antarctica 2015: Summary Page | 2 numbers for Emperor Penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) (Fretwell et al. 2012) and Adélie